Stock 2 vs Stock 3 vs CZ SP01

[38SuperDub]

Those actuallu dont exisit yet. Maybe next year we can add one in.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 4

[Sandro]

Hey you all,

I haven't been here for sometime, but this is an interesting test... Anyhow... Where can I get a couple of the Tanflogio and have it setup for production?

Thank you,

Sandro

[b18prl]

Sandro,

Is it gonna be for you or Jason K.?? lol

Pat

[Sandro]

Sandro,

Is it gonna be for you or Jason K.?? lol

Pat

I think both of us...

[b18prl]

Next time when I go to WAC you can try my stock2 out.

[Onagoth]

any updates? or ETA?

[Andreas]

Here's the write-up: link.

Now telling how much each of the three pistols had been worked over.

[kneelingatlas]

Now telling how much each of the three pistols had been worked over.

You can rest assured they're all worked over all the way!

One thing he left out is that the frame checkering on the Tanfoglio is way more aggressive than the CZ.

[Onagoth]

I thought there would be more of a review of the finer points....

ie...the recoil could of been measured.

ie, the trigger on the shadow is generally perceived to be better, even without the SRT, you guys must of noticed differences?

ie....an accuracy test at 25 yards could of been done with multiple shooters.

I think everyone already concluded that these guns have very similar levels of performance overall. But, its an impossibility to say they are all the same....I assume it was fairly accomplished shooters doing the review, so subtle differences I should think would stand out.

Edited November 1, 2013 by Onagoth

[kneelingatlas]

I know from my experience that when the two platforms are at their maximum potential the triggers are very similar (although the CZ is easier to get there). I can also say there is an undetectable difference in the recoil between cone barrels and straight (I did side by side testing with my Limited 9mm and 9mm conversion upper on the same frame with the same loads).

[Onagoth]

I've heard multiple times the Stock 2 has less recoil. I didn't really expect a confirmation of that, but I thought there would be some type of technical comparison

Edited November 1, 2013 by Onagoth

[kneelingatlas]

I just shot one last weekend and I couldn't tell the difference. I will admit that I found the article anti-climatic too

[phatman]

I like everything about the Tanfoglio except the way the DA trigger stacks. If Tanfoglio were to use the CZ trigger spring they would own the market. And yes I own both.

Sent from my SGH-I757M using Tapatalk

Edited November 1, 2013 by phatman

[Nealio]

I like everything about the Tanfoglio except the way the DA trigger stacks. If Tanfoglio were to use the CZ trigger spring they would own the market. And yes I own both.

Sent from my SGH-I757M using Tapatalk

In my experience, its the hammer spring that makes them stack. Plus some of the Wolff hammer springs are actually too long and coil bind. I've had to cut the flat coil off of 5 different springs to get them to not bind.

Also if you get the EG Extreme Hammer, it moves the disconnector pivot and sear engagement point. It makes a noticeable difference.

Edited November 1, 2013 by Nealio

[Sandro]

I got to tell you, after handling the stock II, I can see some clear advantages compared to the Stock III. The stock II is lighter, and transition times, plus target acquisition must be a lot faster. As of right now, I think the Stock II is better than Stock III and maybe just a hair better than the CZ. I spoke with a shooter who shot about 200k rounds thru his Stock II and he tells me nothing was replaced. In contrast one of his students shoots a gazillion rounds thru a set of CZs and they were on a continues rotation of replacing extractors, slide stop and one even a slide. I did not see this with my eyes so who knows about the durability of the CZ, I can't see how 9mm can break that gun, but I guess if you shoot 3K rounds per day for eighteen days consecutively, well then there you have it. Moral of the story, the Stock II is the gun to shoot.

Edited November 3, 2013 by Sandro

[beltjones]

Is the EG hammer a drop in part?

I have heard that it is.

[beltjones]

I thought there would be more of a review of the finer points....

ie...the recoil could of been measured.

ie, the trigger on the shadow is generally perceived to be better, even without the SRT, you guys must of noticed differences?

ie....an accuracy test at 25 yards could of been done with multiple shooters.

I think everyone already concluded that these guns have very similar levels of performance overall. But, its an impossibility to say they are all the same....I assume it was fairly accomplished shooters doing the review, so subtle differences I should think would stand out.

Could you tell me how we could have measured the recoil?

I didn't really notice a big difference between the triggers. Supposedly the Tanfos stack a little more than the Shadows, but I've felt stack-ey Shadows, and the way the Wizard set up the Stock 3 and Ben's Stock 2 (same dude), they don't feel like they stack very bad at all. I think it comes down to who "built" your gun, not which one you have. And since they were all quite similar DA/SA triggers around the 5.5/2.0 lb range, I thought it was best to describe them as "similar."

The accuracy test - did you miss the part when I said they grouped the same? Because they did. Ben shot my Shadow and his Stock 2 and they grouped the same, I shot my Shadow and shit Stock 2 and they grouped the same, and I shot my Shadow and the Stock 3 and they grouped the same. I suppose we could have put them in a rest, but I'm not convinced that's a very meaningful test.

I don't know if "accomplished" shooters did the review, but I can say that if that was the case, then the "subtle differences" just weren't that meaningful. Perhaps they would have been more meaningful to C class shooters, but I really doubt it. Look at it this way, if I had listed all of the subtle differences you may have come away with the opinion that one gun was the "winner" and one was a distant third place, when in fact that would have been the wrong conclusion, because they're all basically the same, like I said in the review.

[Sandro]

Here is another thought, Eric G. shoots the Stock II, even though he can heve either gun II or III. I heard from the grapevine that the Stock III was suppose to be a gun Tafoglio build from the ground up for him to compete in production. Well, why is he racing the stock II instead? Just a thought...

[beltjones]

Eric shoots the stock 3 in Europe from time to time. Maybe he only shoots the stock 2 in the USA because there are only like 10 in the country with no plans from eaa to import more?

[Sandro]

Look at the videos from Europe too, he is shooting the stock II. There are more than ten Stock III in the country, I think.. This week alone at least five were shipped to EAA and they were sold to pre orders I would I assume.

[Steelhead]

I've been shooting a new Stock III S.E. in parallel with my trusted 2 yr old CZ SP01 Shadow for 2 months now. 3k rounds between the 2 guns later, I still haven't found a clear winner yet so I kinda have to agree with conclusion of the review. Also here in Canada we have great distributor support behind both brands, so that's not a factor.

I ran bench rest sessions with no difference in groups and various offhand timed drills at anywhere from 5 to 25 yards and could not on an objective basis give an overall edge to either guns. Both guns have been eating a steady diet of mixed brass reloads without a single failure (as in 0), operator induced or otherwise, so excellent reliability on both sides of the aisle.

Out of the box the Stock III trigger is just OK, which comes as a disappointment given that it is more expensive of the 2 guns. However it it improves a lot after a good polish/deburr, and the infamous DA stacking becomes much less noticeable with a lighter mainspring ( I agree 100% with Neatio, some Wolf main springs need to be cut or else you're pushing against a solid steel tube if the coils are touching). Also I had to swap the Tanfo iron front sight for a fiber dot. Fiber is standard on the SP01 Shadow.

The CZ is shooter right out of the box, and a fantastic value for the money, so if that's you main criteria... well there you go!

As for the Tanfo, I paid more $ for the Stock III SE and had to spend a few hours polishing/deburring and messing around with springs just to make it as good as the CZ. On the flip side the Nickel finished Special Edition Stock III is a hot piece of holster candy, so guess which one is most likely to be at my hip at the next local IPSC match? No one said it had to be fair.

[Magsz]

Maybe the guy simply likes the shorter barrel and slide...

Some OTHER people like longer guns...

Lets just chalk it up to personal preference which i think is what Beltjones is getting at. There really is no difference between the guns other than the fact that SOME people might like one over the other because of the frame thickness or thinness or other minor nuances between the two guns.

Any way you slice the pie, they're all great pieces.

[Onagoth]

I thought there would be more of a review of the finer points....

ie...the recoil could of been measured.

ie, the trigger on the shadow is generally perceived to be better, even without the SRT, you guys must of noticed differences?

ie....an accuracy test at 25 yards could of been done with multiple shooters.

I think everyone already concluded that these guns have very similar levels of performance overall. But, its an impossibility to say they are all the same....I assume it was fairly accomplished shooters doing the review, so subtle differences I should think would stand out.

Could you tell me how we could have measured the recoil?

I didn't really notice a big difference between the triggers. Supposedly the Tanfos stack a little more than the Shadows, but I've felt stack-ey Shadows, and the way the Wizard set up the Stock 3 and Ben's Stock 2 (same dude), they don't feel like they stack very bad at all. I think it comes down to who "built" your gun, not which one you have. And since they were all quite similar DA/SA triggers around the 5.5/2.0 lb range, I thought it was best to describe them as "similar."

The accuracy test - did you miss the part when I said they grouped the same? Because they did. Ben shot my Shadow and his Stock 2 and they grouped the same, I shot my Shadow and shit Stock 2 and they grouped the same, and I shot my Shadow and the Stock 3 and they grouped the same. I suppose we could have put them in a rest, but I'm not convinced that's a very meaningful test.

I don't know if "accomplished" shooters did the review, but I can say that if that was the case, then the "subtle differences" just weren't that meaningful. Perhaps they would have been more meaningful to C class shooters, but I really doubt it. Look at it this way, if I had listed all of the subtle differences you may have come away with the opinion that one gun was the "winner" and one was a distant third place, when in fact that would have been the wrong conclusion, because they're all basically the same, like I said in the review.

I would of measured recoil with a camera, at the point of firing, with multiple shooters. maybe you didn't have a decent SLR, which I could understand, but that's how I would of measured it. Multiple shooters, same ammo, with the three different guns. It might take a bit to get the picture you need, but that would be a more technical reading of recoil IMO.

regarding the accuracy, i would of taken a similar approach. Multiple shooters, 3 guns, at 25 yards off of a rest, with the same ammo. I would of posted the pictures rather than just saying they grouped the same.

I appreciate the review, but I think the testing methodology could of been better defined. I can accept that all three guns are pretty close to each other, but I'm not sure I'd accept that there are no differences between them. Maybe I just had a different expectation of what the review would outline.

[Andreas]

I would of measured recoil with a camera, at the point of firing, with multiple shooters. maybe you didn't have a decent SLR, which I could understand, but that's how I would of measured it. Multiple shooters, same ammo, with the three different guns. It might take a bit to get the picture you need, but that would be a more technical reading of recoil IMO.

I think we need to keep in mind that The Firearms Report is a humor site focused on calling out self-important blowhards and posting pictures of scantily clad women with guns. A serious firearms review would be stepping out of their lane.

[beltjones]

I thought there would be more of a review of the finer points....

ie...the recoil could of been measured.

ie, the trigger on the shadow is generally perceived to be better, even without the SRT, you guys must of noticed differences?

ie....an accuracy test at 25 yards could of been done with multiple shooters.

I think everyone already concluded that these guns have very similar levels of performance overall. But, its an impossibility to say they are all the same....I assume it was fairly accomplished shooters doing the review, so subtle differences I should think would stand out.

Could you tell me how we could have measured the recoil?

I didn't really notice a big difference between the triggers. Supposedly the Tanfos stack a little more than the Shadows, but I've felt stack-ey Shadows, and the way the Wizard set up the Stock 3 and Ben's Stock 2 (same dude), they don't feel like they stack very bad at all. I think it comes down to who "built" your gun, not which one you have. And since they were all quite similar DA/SA triggers around the 5.5/2.0 lb range, I thought it was best to describe them as "similar."

The accuracy test - did you miss the part when I said they grouped the same? Because they did. Ben shot my Shadow and his Stock 2 and they grouped the same, I shot my Shadow and shit Stock 2 and they grouped the same, and I shot my Shadow and the Stock 3 and they grouped the same. I suppose we could have put them in a rest, but I'm not convinced that's a very meaningful test.

I don't know if "accomplished" shooters did the review, but I can say that if that was the case, then the "subtle differences" just weren't that meaningful. Perhaps they would have been more meaningful to C class shooters, but I really doubt it. Look at it this way, if I had listed all of the subtle differences you may have come away with the opinion that one gun was the "winner" and one was a distant third place, when in fact that would have been the wrong conclusion, because they're all basically the same, like I said in the review.

I would of measured recoil with a camera, at the point of firing, with multiple shooters. maybe you didn't have a decent SLR, which I could understand, but that's how I would of measured it. Multiple shooters, same ammo, with the three different guns. It might take a bit to get the picture you need, but that would be a more technical reading of recoil IMO.

regarding the accuracy, i would of taken a similar approach. Multiple shooters, 3 guns, at 25 yards off of a rest, with the same ammo. I would of posted the pictures rather than just saying they grouped the same.

I appreciate the review, but I think the testing methodology could of been better defined. I can accept that all three guns are pretty close to each other, but I'm not sure I'd accept that there are no differences between them. Maybe I just had a different expectation of what the review would outline.

I could point out how the camera test is inherently flawed, how we did accuracy testing of a sort and I have no reason to believe the outcome would have been different.

I could also point out that we never said there were no differences between them. I simply said that the differences don't amount to much. Again, if I had posted all of that data you probably would have arrived at a faulty conclusion.

So instead of posting the above, I'll simply say this: Dude, it's "could have," not "could of."